Small Guns how would I build that they are hard to notice and find if hidden on the person?

[薔薇語]

12 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I thought you could only put limitations on 5 pt. skill levels. Or did that change? Or am I remembering wrong?

 

I can't recall that being a rule but I could easily be wrong. 

 

La Rose. 

[dsatow]

It was a rule in 5th.  In 6th, I think they removed it, but I don't know for sure.

 

[massey]

3 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

Concealment with OBVIOUS on it is self defeating. 

 

 

I disagree.

 

A disguise kit can be obvious.  You've got the fake beard, the Groucho Marx nose and glasses, etc.  It's OBVIOUS what it is, until you make your Disguise roll (it even comes in a box, with "Disguise Kit -- Fool your friends!" written on it).  Once you've made your roll, though, you are disguised. 

[薔薇語]

The disguise kit, however, isn't the thing being concealed. The gun is. That is an import distinction. 

 

La Rose. 

 

 

[Doc Democracy]

5 hours ago, massey said:

+2 with Concealment -- 4 points

OAF (-1), because when you see the gun, it's obvious it was made small on purpose so it can be hidden.  You also aren't just across the board better at concealment, like you would be without the limitation

Self only (-1/2), because having the gun doesn't make you better at hiding other stuff

Real Cost: 1.6 points, rounded up to 2

 

I don’t think I would allow the focus on the skills at all - that all wraps into the idea of self only.  Neither is the skill hurt if the focus is lost as the need to conceal it is also lost.  The character would have no need to conceal a focus he is not in possession of and so losing a bonus for that concealment does not limit him.  Therefore no limitation.

3 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I thought you could only put limitations on 5 pt. skill levels. Or did that change? Or am I remembering wrong?

 

I did not remember either-so I looked at the rulebook :-).   In 6th there are no 5 point levels and the rules say that the GM ‘may’ put Restrictions on what kind of levels can be limited.

 

Doc

[Lucius]

2 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I don’t think I would allow the focus on the skills at all - that all wraps into the idea of self only.  Neither is the skill hurt if the focus is lost as the need to conceal it is also lost.  The character would have no need to conceal a focus he is not in possession of and so losing a bonus for that concealment does not limit him.  Therefore no limitation.

 

Doc

 

By that argument, if you have accuracy built into the weapon as Skill Levels (or even as bonus OCV) they don't get the Focus Limitation because if you lose the weapon, you obviously don't get to hit anyone with it! I  can't agree with your point here.

 

7 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

Concealment with OBVIOUS on it is self defeating. 

 

La Rose. 

 

This point, however,  I have to agree on.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary goes back and forth

[Doc Democracy]

14 minutes ago, Lucius said:

By that argument, if you have accuracy built into the weapon as Skill Levels (or even as bonus OCV) they don't get the Focus Limitation because if you lose the weapon, you obviously don't get to hit anyone with it! I  can't agree with your point here.

 

I did fire this off pretty quickly but having looked at it again, I am quite confident in it.

 

If the levels are associated with the use of the focussed power then there is no degradation of the skill levels due to the focus being lost.  He is still able to fire that weapon with improved accuracy or to conceal it more easily.  Those things still happen, you just cannot use it.  

 

I think this is one of the situations where multiple limitations add up to greater value than what is lost in utility to the player...

[薔薇語]

For me and my games:

 

Long Sword = OAF

 

Obvious because any layman can grasp what it does. Accessible because it can be removed from a character in or out of combat with some version of Disarm. It can not be reasonably hidden in a single phase (Requires a particular set of circumstances to do so)

 

Dagger = Either OAF or IAF. 

 

Inobvious would mean it is small and could be concealed in about single phase reasonably.  It can also be taken from the user with a Dissrm. 

 

An OAF is harder to conceal: it has a peculiar shape, glow, etc. 

 

Staff of FireBall that appears like normal staves = IAF

 

A layman would struggle to discern its power at a glance. Even after learning the truth, if it was hidden among other staffs out of sight, a character would require some kind of skill check to find. 

 

Staff of FireBall with a burning red orb = OAF

 

It is obvious to even a layman that this is no ordinary staff. They may not know the power wrappes up in it, but can spott it out from others. 

 

La Rose. 

[Surrealone]

Regarding a minimum cost to be able to apply limitations to differing types of skill levels: as a reminder, the application of limitations to the various types of skill levels is a GM call in 6e -- whether we're talking about Combat Skill Levels or plain old Skill Levels (the latter of which would be relevant for a bonus to the Concealment Roll).

 

Per 6e1 p71:

COMBAT SKILL LEVELS WITH LIMITATIONS
With the GM’s permission, characters can put Limitations on CSLs (for example, to build equipment, like a laser sight for a gun). The GM may restrict which types of CSLs a character can Limit; for example he might rule that only 3-point or more expensive CSLs can have Limitations. Unless the GM rules otherwise, CSLs with Limitations can only increase the user’s OCV, not DCV or damage.

 

Per 6e1 p88:

With the GM’s permission, characters can put Limitations on Skill Levels. The GM may restrict which types of Skill Levels a character can Limit; for example he might rule that only 3-point Skill Levels can have Limitations.

[Brian Stanfield]

On 10/5/2018 at 4:19 AM, Doc Democracy said:

If the levels are associated with the use of the focussed power then there is no degradation of the skill levels due to the focus being lost.  He is still able to fire that weapon with improved accuracy or to conceal it more easily.  Those things still happen, you just cannot use it.

 

I’m not sure this holds true. If what you say is true, then any advantage or disadvantage would not be acceptable for any focused power because no degradation happens other than the loss of use. That’s the benefit of a focus: it is removed from the variations of human frailty. But as the rules are written, it would seem that a gun built as an OAF RKA, beam, with charges, etc., is exactly the same, regarding focus, as for a small gun with +2 to Concealment added. 

[archer]

On 10/3/2018 at 5:44 AM, tigersloth said:

Hey guys, In 5th Edition, I a starting to build some basic Star Wars blasters and guns and I wanted to simulate somehow that a small holdout pistol is hard to notice if hidden on a person carrying it?

Should this just be a small special effect of small guns or can I build it somehow into the mechanics of the gun.

 

Thoughts would be great thank you.

 

A Star Wars holdout blaster, as depicted in the Extended Universe novels at least, is smaller than a regular blaster, causes less damage, and has a limited number of charges (as compared to a normal blaster).

 

A bonus to the Concealment roll is a simple way to build it. But if you wanted, you could instead give the blaster a level of persistent Shrinking (halving the size, as little as 1/8th the mass, -2 perception against, +2 DCV for the blaster, and +3 KB for it).

 

It'd certainly be more expensive in points than just the concealment roll bonus. But it would make a holdout blaster play slightly differently than a regular blaster: tougher to knock it from your hand than a regular blaster, it flies further when you're disarmed or when you toss it, and you could conceal it inside all sorts of other items.

[Surrealone]

20 minutes ago, archer said:

A bonus to the Concealment roll is a simple way to build it. But if you wanted, you could instead give the blaster a level of persistent Shrinking (halving the size, as little as 1/8th the mass, -2 perception against, +2 DCV for the blaster, and +3 KB for it).

Characters that are small all the time are supposed to have things representing their size bought outright rather than with Shrinking; Shrinking is intended for characters who can ALTER their size.  (See the second paragraph of 6e1 p283.)

 

Thus, I would expect the same to hold true for objects -- i.e. someone should by the -2 perception, increased KB, etc directly on the blaster (using a compound power and/o appropriate limitations) … unless the blaster is intended to be able to alter its size.

[archer]

21 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

Characters that are small all the time are supposed to have things representing their size bought outright rather than with Shrinking; Shrinking is intended for characters who can ALTER their size.  (See the second paragraph of 6e1 p283.)

 

Thus, I would expect the same to hold true for objects -- i.e. someone should by the -2 perception, increased KB, etc directly on the blaster (using a compound power and/o appropriate limitations) … unless the blaster is intended to be able to alter its size.

 

The player specifically stated he is playing 5e, not 6e.

[Surrealone]

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

The player specifically stated he is playing 5e, not 6e.

 

I happen to know that the same caveat is in 5er.  In case you need it, here's the relevant 5er citation that amounts to the same thing:

5er p218:
"Shrinking is intended for characters who can alter their size; a character who's exceptionally small all t he time can simulate that by buying various Powers and Disadvantages with that special effect (see pages 126-27)."

 

Also, since you're going on about what the player stated (despite it being irrelevant due to the same caveat applying in 5e and 6e), on ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 1:39 PM, that same player also stated, "Thank you guys, I think I am going to go with the simple approach of giving the gun a small bonus to the wearers concealment skill roll."  Thus, a solution has already been selected and continued discussion on the topic is merely that -- discussion -- which need not be constrained by version since it's totally idle speculation on our parts, now.

 

 

[archer]

23 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

 

I happen to know that the same caveat is in 5er.  In case you need it, here's the relevant 5er citation that amounts to the same thing:

5er p218:
"Shrinking is intended for characters who can alter their size; a character who's exceptionally small all t he time can simulate that by buying various Powers and Disadvantages with that special effect (see pages 126-27)."

 

Also, since you're going on about what the player stated (despite it being irrelevant due to the same caveat applying in 5e and 6e), on ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 1:39 PM, that same player also stated, "Thank you guys, I think I am going to go with the simple approach of giving the gun a small bonus to the wearers concealment skill roll."  Thus, a solution has already been selected and continued discussion on the topic is merely that -- discussion -- which need not be constrained by version since it's totally idle speculation on our parts, now.

 

 

 

Thanks but I read that immediately before I made each of my posts in this thread.

[dsatow]

I have a minor issue with the focus rules for how obvious a focus is.  

 

For instance, a sword which may not be allowed in to a formal party gets OAF (-1).  A sword cane which people do not know is a concealed sword gets OAF (-1).  After the sword cane is drawn, obviously people know it's a sword but the sword cane has a slight advantage over the sword.  The question then is why give it the same limitation value.  If it comes up, I generally tell people to drop the value of the obvious focus by a 1/4.  Luckily, it seldom has.

 

 

[Christopher]

12 hours ago, dsatow said:

A sword cane which people do not know is a concealed sword gets OAF (-1).

It gets Inobvious Accessible focus (-1/2). Because a swordcane is not obviously a sword - it is obviously a cane, and in-obviously a sword.

[Christopher]

Just an idea on "how to keep weapons hidden":

6E1 has rules for "hidden use of power":
"If a character’s trying to use the Stealth Skill
to hide or stay quiet, using a Power that can be
perceived may make his task more difcult.
A character using an Obvious Power suffers
a penalty of -1 to his Stealth roll per 10 Active
Points of the Power used (or fraction thereof).
Te GM may establish a minimum penalty, such
as -3, if that seems appropriate. A character using
an Inobvious Power suffers a penalty of -1 to his
Stealth roll per 20 Active Points of the Power used
(or fraction thereof). In both cases, specifc rules
for a Power may change this; for example, using
Growth makes a character easier to perceive at a
defned rate."

I asume 5E either has similar rules or they can be ported easily. It is not the kind of rule that changes much between Versions.

 

AP is a good measure of the power of a gun. And only small (weak) weapons should be hideable. The hidden use of power seems aimed at the superheroic level. But maybe it can be translated to having a power for heroic games? Hiding you have a power in Heroic is about as valuable as hiding that you used a power in Superheroic.

 

The average Superheroic Attack Power has 60 AP.

But between 0 End and and various damage advantages, Heroic Melee weapons have between 23 and 54 AP. And STR adds to that.

And firearms range anywhere from 15 AP (3 DC Pistols/Revolvers) to 420 AP (Wire guided Missile Launcher).

 

It would not be perfect (a bow is propably harder to hide among modern day equipment then a pistol), but it would be a baseline.

[massey]

A sword cane is clearly less obvious than a normal sword, and clearly more obvious than an invisible blade.  While we could create a "semi-obvious" limitation, the differences between -1/2 and -1/4 aren't really all that great.

 

To me the answer is pretty obvious.  The player determines which limitation to take, based upon how he wants it to function.  A derringer built as an IAF is automatically concealed.  No skill rolls, no worries.  Unless you're subjected to a strip search or have to go through a metal detector, the guards will not find the weapon.  A gun built as OAF with bonuses to concealment will be found easily, unless you make your roll.

 

I think we should keep in mind that circumstances may affect whether a limitation comes into play or not, but that usually doesn't affect the value of the limitation unless it happens very frequently (or infrequently).  A large pair of mechanical wings that a character straps themselves into would be OAF, even if you use them at night, even if you fly high enough to avoid detection.  A sniper's camo gear is OAF, even though it helps him hide.  Anyone who sees him wearing it knows instantly what he's wearing (you can't walk around town with it without people noticing).

 

The type of campaign also has to be kept in mind.  A werewolf may have his powers "only under a full moon", which may be a -1 or even a -2.  But if you're playing a werewolf-oriented campaign, and the adventures only take place during the full moon anyway, it may be worth a lot less (or not even be a limitation at all).  It just depends on what the game sessions are expected to be.  In Vampire: The Masquerade, the characters only go out at night.  But everybody is a vampire, so nobody goes out in the daytime anyway.  It isn't likely to come up at all unless you run into human hunters.

[Christopher]

4 hours ago, massey said:

The player determines which limitation to take, based upon how he wants it to function.  A derringer built as an IAF is automatically concealed.  No skill rolls, no worries.

There are enough examples in cinematic and book fiction where a character sees the "bulge of a concealed gun" that most everyone else in the room misses. And equally many cases of "heroic stealth" to get it into such an area. Or "villanious stealth", wich result in only the hero being able to stop this assasin.

Just think of Gandalf the White sneaking his staff and that he was a white mage into King Theodens Court.

 

With superheroics I would have no issues with such a simple ruling. It is not like a gun is any more unexpected then someone being revealed to "be a super all along". And it is propably a whole lot less dangerous. Many people would not even take the limitation to begin with.

 

But in heroic the conditions are different. The gun can change owner. Nobody propably paid points for the gun. Buying down a OAF to IAF via a Naked Buyoff" would propably be to expensive anyway. But concealment is a common skill. So we need some proper rules for that. And I think the existing "Obviousnes of power" rules are a good start.

[Beast]

For me to have a concealed weapon

1 it must be small so either limited power.22cal and a med mag(12 rnds max)

   or very limited ammo and a more powerful round(.357 and 4 rnds)
2 Concealed carry only works against sight perception(
  +5 for spotting a concealed weapon if the subject is frisked|
3 larger weapons require larger coats/jackets/longer dresses/etc....

[dsatow]

On 11/29/2018 at 5:01 AM, Christopher said:

It gets Inobvious Accessible focus (-1/2). Because a swordcane is not obviously a sword - it is obviously a cane, and in-obviously a sword.

 

But a sword cane when used, is obviously a sword.  Per 6e1p376, the obviousness is related to the use of the power.  If when using the power, the power obviously comes from the focus, the focus is obvious.

 

[Christopher]

8 hours ago, dsatow said:

 

But a sword cane when used, is obviously a sword.  Per 6e1p376, the obviousness is related to the use of the power.  If when using the power, the power obviously comes from the focus, the focus is obvious.

 

Not correct:

" If a Focus is Inobvious, it’s not immediately
clear where the power comes from. Examples
include disguised or concealed weapons (such
as a cane-gun or a blaster hidden inside an
ordinary-looking glove) or a magic ring that gives
no indications of its powers (it looks completely
normal, doesn’t glow when its powers are used,
and so forth). A character who buys an Inobvious
Focus must specify a certain power, Skill, or set of
circumstances that allow an opponent to identify
the Inobvious Focus (for example, a device built
into clothing would be detectable by a search or
Infrared Perception; anyone with magic abilities
could identify a magic necklace)."

the hidden weapon is literally mentioned in the paragraph after the one you read.

[LoneWolf]

The difference between an IAF and an OAF is that with inaccessible focus I can use the power without people realizing it is being use.   So with the cane gun I can appear to be holding the cane and fire without people being automatically able to know what is happening.  With a sword cane I have to draw the sword from the cane at which time everyone realizes that I am about to attack.   With the gun cane even when I am pointing it directly at someone there is no indication of what it is, or what it does.  With the sword cane once I draw it everyone knows what it is. 

[Ninja-Bear]

Since the OP stated 5th, I would use Negative Penalty Skills Levels and I would allow that to take the focus limitation.